Haryana

Sonipat

47/2013

KULBEER S/O ZILE SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

1.KRISHI VIKAS KENDRA GOHANA,2. KURNOOL SEEDS PVT. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

VIKASH KUNDU

15 Jul 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SONEPAT.

 

                                Complaint No.47 of 2013

                                Instituted on:16.01.2013

                                Date of order:15.07.2015

 

Kulbeer son of Zile Singh, resident of village Guhna, tehsil and distt. Sonepat.

                                           ...Complainant.

 

                        Versus

 

1.Krishi Vikas Kendra Gohana in front of Barodia Garden, Jind road, Gohana, distt. Sonepat through its Prop. Sandeep Singh.

2.M/s Kurnool Seeds Pvt. Ltd. Raghvender Nagar, D.No.-5A-2-3-II, Kurnool, Andhra Pradesh through its Manager.

                                           ...Respondents.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh. Vikas Kundu, Adv. for complainant.

           Sh. Anil Ranga,  Adv. for respondent no.1.

           Sh. SP Verma,    Adv. for respondent no.2.

          

 

BEFORE-  NAGENDER SINGH, PRESIDENT.

        SMT.PRABHA WATI, MEMBER.

        D.V.RATHI, MEMBER.

 

O R D E R

 

          Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondents alleging therein that he is lease holder of the land measuring 18 Kanals 7 Marla owned by Ran Singh son of Chandgi Ram resident of village Guhna, tehsil and distt. Sonepat.  The respondent no.1 is running a seed shop in the village under the name and style of Krishi Vikas Kendra and he organized a meeting in the village at the house of one Jasmer son of Puran Singh and allured the innocent persons to purchase seeds from him. The complainant believing the respondent no.1 has purchased the cotton seed for Rs.2000/- vide bill no.2132.  The respondent no.1 did not issue the bills for the purchased seeds on the date of purchase of seed to the complainant and other farmers. However, later-on 11.9.2012, the respondent no.1 has issued the bill to the complainant and other farmers. The complainant has sown the said cotton seed in the land and after few days, he was shocked and stunned to see that there was no proper germination and growth.  The complainant approached the respondent no.1, but of no use.  Thereafter the complainant and other villagers approached the Deputy Director of Agrl. Sonepat and on complaint, a team was deputed to inspect the crop at the spot, who made a report vide serial no.3800 dated 6.11.2012 about the undeveloped growth of the crop.  The complainant and other villagers on the basis of the inspection report requested the respondent no.1 to compensate the complainant regarding the loss of crop, but of no use and due to this wrongful act of the respondent no.1, the complainant has suffered unnecessary financial loss, harassment, mental agony. So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.        The respondents no.1 and 2 have appeared and they filed their separate written statement.

          The respondent no.1 in its written statement has submitted that the germination of seed depends upon many features like atmosphere, water and use of seed etc. The respondent no.1 is bonafide purchase and all the liabilities of any kind are of Kurnool Seeds (P) Ltd.  The complainant has not followed the instructions. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.1 and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

          The respondent no.2 in its written statement has submitted that the cotton seeds of the respondent company were told to be sown in May and June of a year and the produce of the crops will met in December of the year, but as per the complaint, the cotton seeds were sold to him in September, 2012.  One Jasmer son of Narain Singh sold the seeds to the complainant who was not in any manner authorized to sale the seed.   The complainant and respondent no.1 are trying to take benefit of their own wrongs which is not permissible under the law.  The cotton seeds are not sown in May/June of the year and in case seeds are timely sown, then termination will took place within 10 days of sowing.  The inspection report dated 22.10.2012 made it clear that in October 2012 the germination was found up to the extent of 30 to 50% and as such it is apparently clear that the cotton seeds were not sown in May, June, 2012. Further more, the seeds was not of the respondent company.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent company and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint since the complainant is not entitled for any relief and compensation.

3.        We have heard the ld. Counsel for both the parties at length and we have also gone through the entire relevant material available on the case file carefully & minutely.

4.        Ld. Counsel for the complainant has submitted that due to supply of inferior and substandard quality of cotton seed, the complainant has suffered a huge loss of Rs.80,000/-.

          On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the respondent no.1 has submitted that the germination of  seed depends upon many features like atmosphere, water and use of seed etc. The respondent no.1 is bonafide purchase and all the liabilities of any kind are of Kurnool Seeds (P) Ltd.  The complainant has not followed the instructions. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.1.

          Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.2 has also submitted that the cotton seeds of the respondent company were told to be sown in May and June of a year and the produce of the crops will met in December of the year, but as per the complaint, the cotton seeds were sold to him in September, 2012.  One Jasmer son of Narain Singh sold the seeds to the complainant who was not in any manner authorized to sale the seed.   The complainant and respondent no.1 are trying to take benefit of their own wrongs which is not permissible under the law.  The cotton seeds are not sown in May/June of the year and in case seeds are timely sown, then termination will took place within 10 days of sowing.  The inspection report dated 22.10.2012 made it clear that in October 2012 the germination was found up to the extent of 30 to 50% and as such it is apparently clear that the cotton seeds were not sown in May, June, 2012. Further more, the seeds was not of the respondent company.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent company and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint since the complainant is not entitled for any relief and compensation.

          In the present case, the fields were inspected by the Agrl. Department and report in this regard is available on the case file.

5.        After hearing learned counsel for both the parties and after going through the entire relevant record available on the case file very carefully, we are of the view that there is deficiency in service on the part of the respondents no.1 and 2.

          We have perused the reply filed by the respondent no.1 wherein he has submitted that the respondent no.1 has no liability of any kind of any claim because he is bonafide buyer and further sale the products on behalf of the company Karnool Seeds (P) Ltd. 

          So, from the above reply of the respondent no.1, it is clear that the respondent no.1 has sold the products on behalf of the company Karnool Seeds (P) Ltd. In our view, it is an admission on the part of the respondent no.1 and there is no need to rebut anything if there is any admission.

          As far as the contention of the respondent no.2 that there is no bill of the month of May, 2012, is concerned, the bills were not issued by the respondent no.1 in the month of May, 2012, but when all the villagers raised objection and protested in the matter, then the respondent no.1 has issued the bill on 11.9.2012.  In our view, there is also a deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.1 because he issued the bill belatedly.

          The other objection of the respondent no.2 is that the cotton seeds of the respondent company were to be sown in May and June of a year and the produce of the crops will met in December of the year, but as per the complaint, the cotton seeds were sold to him in September, 2012.

          But we find no force in this contention of the respondent no.2, because it is proved that the seeds were purchased in the month of May, 2012, but due to protest raised by the villagers in the matter, the respondent no.1 issued the bill in the month of September, 2012.

          It is a general phenomena that in district Sonepat and in other parts of Haryana State, there was rainy season in the month of July, August and September.  So, it is not possible to sow the cotton seed in the month of September.

          In the report dated 22.10.2012, it is mentioned that after germination, plants were not fully developed. Further Flowers(Tinde) comes very late. It is also mentioned in the report that in all the fields, there was less germination upto 30 to 50%, development of plant is less, less fruitous.

           In the present case there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the complainant has purchased the cotton seed of respondent no.2 company from respondent no.1. The report of ADO also supports the case of the complainant.  So, definitely, the complainant is entitled to get some suitable compensation from the respondents.  The observation of this Forum is fortified by the decision of the Hon’ble National Commission rendered in case titled as M/s Dharam Pal and sons and others Vs. Som Parkash, 2014(3) CLT page 187 and it has been held by the Hon’ble National Commission that :-

“Compensation can be awarded without laboratory  test of seeds, only on the basis of inspection of report of Agriculture Department-As there was no ill-will in between inspection team and the seller of the seed.

Officers of Agrl. Department inspected the fields and submitted their report-Complaint accepted on the basis of report of Agrl. Deptt-Plea of OP that seeds not got tested from the lab nor seeds send to Seed Analyst for analysis-Plea not tenable-Held-As per the report, it is clear that the complainant had suffered loss in his paddy crop, to the extent of 50% on account of substandard quality of seed sold to him by the Ops-There is nothing to label it as any ill-will by the members of the joint inspection team and the seller of the seed-Revision petition dismissed”.

 

         Now coming to the compensation as to for which amount of compensation the complainant is entitled to?

           From the report it is clear that there was less germination upto 30 to 50%.  Meaning thereby, the complainant must have suffered the loss to the extent of 40% due to less germination because after germination, plants were not fully developed. Further Flowers(Tinde) comes very late. Development of plant is less and less fruitous.

           The complainant has mentioned that he has sown the seed in the land measuring 18 Kanals 07 Marlas land.

           In our view, Rs.25000/- (Rs.twenty five thousands) per acre would be an adequate compensation to be granted to the complainant from the respondent no.2 for supply of substandard and inferior quality of cotton seed to the complainant.  Accordingly, we hereby direct the respondent no.2 to pay a sum of Rs.25000/- (Rs.twenty five thousands) per acre to the complainant for supply of sub-standard and inferior quality of cotton seed, for rendering deficient services, for causing unnecessary mental agony, harassment and under the head of litigation expenses.  Similarly we hereby direct the respondent no.1 to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- (Rs.five thousands) as compensation to the complainant for rendering deficient services, harassment and under the head of litigation expenses.

           With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed.

          Certified copy of this order be provided to both the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

(Prabha Wati)      (DV Rathi)                   (Nagender Singh-President)

Member DCDRF      Member DCDRF                     DCDRF, Sonepat.

 

Announced:15.07.2015